I have a question
Posted by taggles on June 24, 2009
I’ve been over at Reclusive Leftist most of the day, probably driving them crazy, because I often repeated myself and probably didn’t make myself very clear. I have a habit of doing that sometimes, so my apologies to Violet for that! So anyhoot, the discussion revolved around a question that I asked about whether I, a feminist, who believes the right to choose an abortion is a cornerstone of equality for women, has a place in this new fang dangled 4th Wave of Feminism.
The reason I asked this question was to try and discern why some feminists would so easily agree to the premise that abortion is divisive and that we must set it aside to gain critical mass in other areas of importance. I am not saying that these feminists are not strongly pro-choice, they are. But I do believe it is a mistake to try and shelve the issue of abortion in order to work with people who are not pro-choice. My experience with anti-choice people and organizations has led me to the conclusion that they are single issue voters. They will never work with any pro choice organization on any issue.
So how is the new plan going to work? Who exactly are we looking to attract to our causes of equal pay, domestic violence, day care, equality etc? And what do we have to give up in order to attract these groups and people?
Maybe I have the wrong impression on who it is exactly we are trying to attract. I can’t seem to come to any other conclusion except that it is the anti choice people and groups we would be trying to attract by couching or shelving our pro-choice stance. Any other person or group that believes in choice is already on board or will be attracted to the 4th wave without pro choicers giving up the pro choice stance.
I just think it’s a very slippery slope, especially when the right to choose has been nibbled away by many states through legislation and intimidation. Who will carry the mantle of choice, if not us? A poster named Beet over at Reclusive Leftist put it best I think:
This entire discussion is emanating out of weakness.
Feminists can’t win without the help of anti choicers, therefore we must accept anti choicers as feminists and view abortion primarily as a ‘tactic’ that keeps women ‘divided’ and ’subjugated’. If that’s how you view abortion rights, then you’ve pretty much dropped the issue. This is a defeat for feminism, even if it is tactically necessary to make progress in other areas (which it may be).
I could be completely off base with this. I am hoping to have an open and honest discussion. Please don’t hold back, be nice to eachother and especially to me.
Do you see any danger in shelving or couching choice in order to advance other important issues?
DYB said
Hmm…I suppose it it all depends on whether one thinks abortion defines and negates “feminism” and “feminists.” Beet says that anti-choicers are single-issue voters. But it seems that Beet herself makes feminism a single-issue movement: choice. If you’re not pro-choice, you are not a feminist. Personally, as a male, I don’t agree.
As a gay man I’ve had to accept that many gay-rights supporterss – including Hillary Clinton – opposed same-sex marriage. I’ve had to come to terms that opposition to “marriage” did not necessarily make Clinton and countless others bigots. I can’t define “gay rights supporters” with that single issue. So should feminism be defined by a single issue?
taggles said
DYB, So should gays just give up on same sex marriage because they’ve had to come to terms with the opposition? Should they shelf gay marriage or couch the issue?
garychapelhill said
hey taggles, great post! I’m not sure I agree with this statement from beet:
They’ve pretty much been geting along without them until now, haven’t they? And I don’t think “anti-choice feminists” are really that big of a demo that they’re going to push things over the top in any of those other issues you discussed. But I could be wrong. It seems to me that women can be understanding of differing personal feelings about abortion, but the right for a woman to control her body should be fundamental premise of feminism, right?
taggles said
I think beet was being facetious. but yes I agree the right to of a woman to control her body should be a fundamental premise of feminism. If it’s not I don’t know which issue is.
DYB said
taggles, I didn’t say that feminists must “give up” on choice. I’m saying that defining only pro-choicers as “feminists” seems like feminism becomes a single-issue movement. Just like only defining those who support gay marriage as gay-rights advocates would leave us without, for one, Hillary Clinton.
DYB said
Incidentally, is “feminism” a label that’s given out by others, like a knighthood? Or is it a label that one assigns to oneself?
taggles said
DYB, I’m not saying anti choicers can’t be feminists on some issues. But the label of one issue feminism does not emanate from pro choice women, it emanates from the anti choice crowd.
True feminism is choice, which means a woman can choose to carry to term.
garychapelhill said
oops, should have read the whole comment first. That just kind of stopped me cold.
I think there can be disagreement about abortion dyb, but there has to be a fundamental prinicple, and in this case it is human autonomy. The right to control our bodies. any restriction on abortion would infringe on that freedom, and is therefore incompatible with the movement, imo. An example that I would say that is analogous in the gay movement is the premise that sexuality is immutable, that we are born gay. I don’t think we should compromise with people who may support our other freedoms (military, marriage, etc) if they think that being gay is a behavior or a choice.
taggles said
Anti choicers only believe in their choice, which makes them not supportive of all women, although they may be supportive of equal rights, domestic violence, etc.
the question isn’t really whether there is some common ground, the question is whether one group should couch or shelve choice in order to achieve other goals.
Would gay people give up protesting and the fight of gay marriage in order to keep people who believe only in civil unions on board. Would they give that up.
I’m just trying to give a paralel of where I’m coming from.
garychapelhill said
DYB, regarding Hillary, she says that she personally sees marriage as a man and a woman, but she never said that she would try to use her beliefs to set policy. To the contrary, she said that despite her views she believed that all people should be treated equally, including gays and lesbians and would repeal DOMA so that the states would take the lead, which they had been doing so until Obama’s election . I think she is probably more supportive of gay marriage than she let on in the primary for political reasons. obama also modified his true feelings, but in the opposite direction.
garychapelhill said
I guess my point was that people who think abortion is wrong can be feminists, but they can’t be actively trying to take away fundamental rights from other women.
indigogrrl said
As a gay woman who has not had to deal with issues such as birth control or an unwanted pregnancy, perhaps my opinion does not carry the weight that another’s would…but I do believe that feminism should encompass ALL of the issues that affect our daily lives .
If push came to shove for me and I had to choose between choice vs. economic issues (pay equity, equal rights for same sex couples) I think I would choose that which is in the best interest of my self and my family. To be honest the debate about choice for me is like a thunderstorm viewed from a distance because it has nothing to do with my day to day.
taggles said
I agree all issues should encompass feminism, indigo. That includes pro choice, yes?
SHV said
To be honest the debate about choice for me is like a thunderstorm viewed from a distance because it has nothing to do with my day to day.
************
I think it’s an issue for all women of reproductive age; not all pregnancy is a result of consensual heterosexual sex.
carolinenotakennedy said
Indigogirl, What if you were raped and became pregnant? What if one of your children had an unwanted pregnancy when they get older?
indigogrrl said
yes, but I fear that we always get bogged down on the choice debate and things like for example the ERA get shelved because of the passionate debate.
When I was younger, I wanted a child so badly I resented those who chose abortion.
Then I got pregnant, and it was so hard on my body and I was so sick…it changed my outlook. I would never ever want someone to have to be pregnant if they didn’t really want that child, both for their well being and that child’s well being.
And yet the debate has been framed such that anti-choice has slimed its way over to anti birth control (ie the day after pill not being available to whomever and whenever)…. and those same minds would deny adoption to loving gay parents. It’s really fucked….
indigogrrl said
If I were raped and became pregnant I would most likely have the child.
Cinie said
I’m one who’s never been a self-identified “feminist.” The whole “diversity” dynamic has always been rather uncomfortable, for me for one thing. But, watching the latest developments re: NOW’s election and the schism between “second and third wavers,” and pro choice/life women, etc. has left me disturbingly perplexed. Conservative women killed the ERA, why would they be less divisive now? Or, mightn’t abortion be the issue that some anti-feminists use to do damage? That being said, women can protest misogyny and sexism leveled at any woman without inviting her to move in with them. I’m just very concerned about all the highlight on what divides women instead of focusing on all the ties that should bind us together. Maybe I’m dense, but there’s a lot of stuff I just don’t get.
indigogrrl said
I agree with you cinie ~ any win in any area would be better than all or nothing.
carolinenotakennedy said
indigogirl,
The debate has been framed by people and groups who are anti choice.
Feminists who are pro choice are not one issue feminists. They have multiple issues. It will do no woman any good to shelve the issue of one’s autonomy over their own body, that is a core issue.
carolinenotakennedy said
Cinie, I agree with this:
indigogrrl said
caroline ~ I am not saying to shelve it. Is the excuse that palin is not choice one of the reasons the sexism and hate was so over the top? I never understood seeing my friends who I thought were “feminists” twist themselves in hateful knots because of sarah palin. it was scary and eye opening to see them spew all that hate
SHV said
Among “anti-choice” women is that the issue that separates or is it just the most obvious “marker” for a mind set that is not “feminist”. Looking at anti-choice religious web sites, anti-abortion is only one aspect of what a proper woman should be.
janicen said
Thank you for this post, taggles, and for the encouragement to have an “open and honest discussion” of different viewpoints. I, perhaps naively, think that is the purpose of blogging and a characteristic of a successful blog. If differing viewpoints are ignored, or evoke insults then the blog is a failure IMO.
I haven’t read the comments on the other blog but, based on your description, I think I can see the points the other commenters are trying to make. We all know that abortion is divisive. It may be that way because the most vocal people are on the extremes of the issue.
When I think of the abortion debate, I think of the Dr. Seuss story about the Zax. The north-going Zax and the south-going Zax meet face-to-face on the Prairie of Prax and each refuse to budge either left or right to let the other pass so they stay there until a highway is actually built around them. Sometimes, that’s how the abortion debate feels to me.
I was a college student in the seventies and protested for the passage of the ERA and for abortion rights. I was absolutely convinced that abortion on demand with no parental notification was the only acceptable option. Then my father, a labor union president and the most liberal person I have ever known (no kidding) asked me this question, “While I understand the call for abortion on demand with no parental notification, I wonder how I, as a parent, can be held legally responsible for my minor child, including her medical care, but in this one instance, a surgical (even a ‘non-surgical’ abortion is considered a surgery for insurance purposes) procedure can be performed on her and I cannot be informed. Who is responsible if something goes wrong with that procedure?”
For me, it was the first time that I realized that maybe there is, just the tiniest bit a room to step to the side to end the impass.
carolinenotakennedy said
indigogirl,
What happened to Hillary & Sarah both was disgusting! Everyone should be outraged! I know that I am.
lililam said
Yes, choice is a core issue and we should be vigilant to defend it, but I agree with Indigo in that there are so many additional issues that are not gettig airtime. Misogyny, economic opportunity, adequate child care and housing, flex time, etc are necessary. I also believe that as our status improves economically and societally, our victimhood will diminish (wishful thinking), and choice will be a given. As a female small business owner, I wish more assistance and role models were available to me. It is fine to include those women who prefer not to abort within the spectrum of friends, as long as they do not impose or deny. How can we exclude so many good people?
janicen said
I get that we’re not really debating abortion in this discussion, but I think that maybe people feel that legalized abortion is not going to change anytime soon since more than fifty percent of republicans support it, so maybe people think we should focus on a less divisive issue.
I think that may be a dangerous attitude, but I think that’s what they are saying.
taggles said
SHV, that was one of my other points. These anti abortion groups do not want to find common ground on reducing abortions, they want none. They don’t want women to have easy access to birth control or sex education. So what is it one is trying to achieve by couching their pro choice position.
Most feminists already agree to reducing abortions. But the partner they are suppose to be comprimising with is uncompromising.
taggles said
right, janicen that is what I think they are saying to. But when you think that Mississippi only has one abortion clinic in the entire state and you read about how states are writing laws to make it difficult for women to have abortions. Roe does not protect on the state level. The states can come up with million ways to sunday to stop abortion without outright outlawing it.
DYB said
I agree completely that “choice” has been used by both sides to define the debate. And personally I’m not sure that’s a good thing.
I just get the sense that those women who are not pro-choice are being ostracized from the “feminist” movement by those who are pro-choice. Whether or not that’s a good thing – I’m not really sure. If any woman defines choice as the primary issue of feminism – I accept that.
taggles said
lililam, i don’t look at like as a pro choice excluding good people. I look at it the other way around. Why are we being excluded? Why does the compromise have to come from the pro choice supporters?
taggles said
They are excluding themselves. Pro choice women’s organizations work on all these issues we want addressed. The anti abortion groups will not work with them on those issues because of pro choice.
DYB said
taggles, you are right that the anti-choice side is not compromising. But I think if they compromised – they would essentially become pro-choice. No?
taggles said
Why can’t they just work with us on the issues that matter to both? Why does one side have to couch that they are pro choice. I would hope women’s organizations would not do that. Anti abortion groups will not work with pro choice groups on any issue. What will happen to pro choice if that’s the way it’s got to be?
janicen said
Yeah, taggles, I have to agree. I tried to see the other side, but freedom of choice is so fundamental to women’s rights that it’s almost impossible to separate the two.
chatblu said
I have several thoughts on this matter. One, I subscribe to the theory of co-belligerence. I can work with people on an issue even if I do not subscribe to all of their beliefs. In other workd I can work with you on the passage of the Fair Paycheck Act even if you are not pro-choice. Secondly, I am becoming more and more convinced that Roe v. Wade will never be seriously challenged. It is too much of a cash cow for both parties. The Democratic party whips women into a frenzy lest it be struck down. I have several friends in the Republican party that assure me that they are exhorted to rush to the polls as the lives of innocent babes hang in the balance.
lililam said
Taggles- i am not referring to pro-life groups, they will not compromise, I am referring to individual women who choose not to abort. They are two different populations. I do not believe we should court pro-life groups per se, becouse they are immoveable.
taggles said
chatblu, yes pro choice women will work with anyone who agrees with them on a certain issue. the relationship is not reciprocal.
taggles said
lililam, I agree, women who choose not to abort but don’t infringe on another woman’s choice are already of the same mind. Unless you are speaking of individual women who won’t chose to abort and don’t want other women to have a choice. Then they are in the anti choice group.
why couch choice then?
DYB said
“pro choice women will work with anyone who agrees with them on a certain issue. the relationship is not reciprocal.”
taggles, I’m not sure I believe that this is true. Palin is one example of a woman who has not been welcomed into the feminist movement because she is anti-choice.
Pat Johnson said
I am with taggles on this. If a woman is pro choice she is saying that she is open to all options. Prolifers are not. No matter how well they coach the language, the simple fact remains that they do not approve. As a result, they will do everything they can to move the goal closer to their own point of view.
As I stated yesterday, or the day before, some states are now making it much more difficult for a woman to make her decision cloaked in the secrecy of a doctor’s office without having to go through hoops before she is approved. Pro lifers are fully backing that position which gives me great pause when I am told that Palin is a pro lifer who supports pro choice. How does one support a dichotomy of differences?
The easiest answer is that “I may not choose an abortion for myself but I defend and appreciate another’s decision to do so”. Pro lifers are not interested in that theory of expression. It is the choice of the individual and not some do gooder who is intent in enforcing their own views on others.
There is no common ground.
indigogrrl said
There is no common ground on this issues, but there are so many more issues… I’m ready for some, ANY progress after the last year.
chatblu said
Pat, there is no common ground on matters of choice. There is common ground on other issues, such as the economy.
taggles said
DYB, I can’t imagine Sarah Palin joining now or naral, she would never do that because of her religious beliefs.
There is a divide here that is for sure. The question is should pro choice feminists couch choice for someone like Sarah Palin who would probably never join an organization who believes in the right of women to have autonomy over their own bodies.
Yes, these women’s groups failed on fighting the sexism and they should be ashamed of themselves, but that doesn’t mean they should have to give up pro choice so sarah palin can feel comfortable in joining to fight common issues.
Pat Johnson said
I am referring to common ground surrounding the argument of choice. It does not matter what the other issues constitute, if a woman loses the right to do with her body what she chooses, all else has little meaning.
What have I gained in the long run if I cannot decide my future for myself if I am now earning equal pay with a man? Sorry to be flip, but big deal. If I have lost the right to decide whether or not I wish to parent, or limit the number of children I raise, or must endure for the rest of my life a mistake I made, then what have I gained in the end? Certainly not autonomy.
I am still at the mercy of someone else who has risen to the pinnacle of deciding for me. The right to choose is tied in with all other issues presented. It must and should remain in the forefront and not be decided on someone else’s personal belief system.
indigogrrl said
taggles ~ palin’s comfort in joining is not the issue. I think we have to build coalitions on many issues and not just one…. I have no good analogy but it just seems short sighted to turn away anyone who in good faith is working for equality for women.
taggles said
indigogrrl, i want to form coalitions as well. but the problem is anti abortion groups and people will not work with womens groups on issues not involving choice, if that said woman’s group also believes in choice.
Pat Johnson said
You are fooling yourselves if you think Sarah Palin is going to fight for pro choice. She has already stated that she is pro life and her religious affiliation subscribes to that belief.
Pro life people are not now, nor have they ever been, in favor of abortion rights.
DYB said
taggles, I’m not sure I accept that NOW and Naral are the arbitrers of what feminism is. After all, they did declare Obama a feminist!
The truth is, anti-choicers can’t accept that a woman has a right to choose. Because it would make them pro-choice! It’s a kind of a non-starter. So women’s rights organization have a choice to make. (No pun intended.) Someone like Sarah Palin – a woman who wasn’t rich, who didn’t go to Ivy League schools, is a working mother, a Governor of a state – is not seen as a feminist because she is anti-choice. The fact that she might be a powerful ally in fight for equal pay, fight against domestic violence, etc., has been usurped by her position on abortion. I’m sure she wouldn’t join NOW or Naral, but all these women’s issues other than choice don’t need to go through NOW or Naral.
indigogrrl said
taggles ~ its a chicken vs egg dilemma….
are there any “feminist” groups that do not have the right to choice as their foundation?
is there a feminist organization that deals primarily with equality and economic issues?
taggles said
DYB, Sarah Palin and most anti choicers will not work with groups who are pro choice. For the plain and simple reason they would never ever want to be associated with it. They believe it is immoral. They would never support an organization that believes in choice.
carolinenotakennedy said
chatblu,
We would love to work with pro-lifers on other issues if we do not have to give up our own struggle for choice to do it. Why should we have to sit down, shut up and stop fighting loud and clear for our right to have control of our own bodies? The question is basically, why won’t they work with us on the issues where we agree? We need to give up our struggle in order to have them join with us on other issues????
Pat Johnson said
It is ironic that we applaud and encourage women in countries like the mideast to assert their own autonomy and throw off the veil of patriarchy when there are groups within our own nation willing, able, and vocal about denying rights to other women simply based on personal beliefs. Beliefs, I might add, taken from religious teachings.
If a woman loses the right to choose her own destiny, particularly when it comes to reproductive rights, all other gains are without merit.
indigogrrl said
taggles ~ thats a generalization…. I know pro life women. And they need decent pay, and health insurance and protection from misogyny just like a liberal woman….. and given a chance I believe they would work toward those goals.
But the democratic party has the choice goal post and the repubs have the pro life goalpost…and the ball just keeps moving up and down the field. And no one wins.
DYB said
taggles, I agree that Palin would never work with NOW or Naral. They won’t work with her either. So what? Is there no other way for Palin to be fighting for equal pay, against domestic violence, etc. alongside other feminists? Why are NOW and Naral arbitrers of anything?
taggles said
DYB, Why are the anti abortion gorups arbiters over a woman’s body?
I cannot believe the solution is to go weak kneed on choice.
DYB said
taggles, you are misinterpreting what I’m saying.
carolinenotakennedy said
Equality, to me, includes being able to make my own choice regarding my own body. What function limits a males choice on what he does with his?
afrocity said
I am watching the ABC health care infomercial. This is such a farce. Obama has turned the presidency into a publicity stunt.
DYB said
“Equality, to me, includes being able to make my own choice regarding my own body. What function limits a males choice on what he does with his?”
I agree, but I thought we were talking about anti-choice women and feminism.
I keep saying “But what about anti-choice women fighting for equal pay, against domestic violence, etc.” and the response is: “But a woman has a right to choose!” Yes and nobody here argues otherwise. Palin won’t join NOW and Naral, and NOW and Naral are telling Palin to go screw herself. And here we are.
taggles said
I think I feel the same about you DYB. There is some disconnect here.
The purpose of the post is what is the solution to this divide? Pro choice women deal with all of these issues. Anti choice groups will not work with them because they will not be associated with anything that has to do with choice. it is against their religious beliefs.
I will work with Sarah Palin on any other women’s issue. It is her and those like her who will not work with us, simply because we are pro choice. I totally respect her choice to be pro life. But does that mean I have to give up my choice of reserving the right to fight for abortion, in order to have her work with me on the other issues?
What is the solution? I don’t think it’s couching my position on choice.
indigogrrl said
omigawd afrocity ~ are you drunk? how can you stand it????
DYB said
“Obama has turned the presidency into a publicity stunt.”
Afrocity, did you read Dana Milbank’s column from today? He talks about this very well.
DYB said
taggles, but who is “us?” You might work with Palin and she mgiht work with you. But NOW and Naral told Palin to go shove it where the light don’t shine.
indigogrrl said
taggles ~
and you didn’t answer my question… are there any women’s organizations that choice is not the defining cornerstone?
so if they do not or cannot be a member of a group because of this one issue, where could they go to advance other feminist issues???
taggles said
Yes, there are feminist organizations for women who are anti abortion.
Molly Pitcher said
Thinking back to ERA, I do not recall pro-choce/pro-life being an issue that got much coverage. Maybe I have the times wrong. But as the parent of a Downs adult (born before testing or legal abortion), I have to say that there must be choice. When I had a bonus baby when I was 40, I did not bother to test: I had learned the first child was NOT disposable, so another would not have been either (but talk about hoping and praying….) But I could never tell another woman she had to have a Downs baby or one without a brain, etc.
Seems that abortion to me is not a feminist issue, it really is a human rights issue. Not sure the one should be bartered away to obtain the other.
indigogrrl said
so then there are anti abortion feminists who would “work” with us…..
garychapelhill said
afrocity–I made it for all of about 2 minutes.
Cinie said
Seems to me the solution is simple, let the pro-lifers form their own feminist groups.
taggles said
find them indigogrrl. I haven’t come across any. Unless we don’t want to have choice be part of the platform.
taggles said
There is feminists for life. That is one I know of.
taggles said
DYB, NOW and NARAL are pro choice groups. Groups Sarah Palin wants nothing to do with.
I agree they should have defended her against the sexism. But that does not mean they have to agree with her politically or not advance their own cause and agenda to accomodate her.
indigogrrl said
taggles ~ with all due respect (and I mean that cuz I DO respect you!) choice was a bludgeoning tool this past election for dems to to get other dems support the fraud in chief…. it was the sole reason the Democrat Apologist in my bed voted for the jack ass. I agree with DYB…. it’s a political football that keeps people watching the game….
I really have lots of other things to worry about and fear that if we keep framing it in the black or white with us or against us tone…those other issues will continue to be ignored. Case in point ~ here we are discussing whether we can “work” with someone who disagrees with us and not discussing and strategizing how to convince conservative women and LGBTs that the ERA might just be beneficial to us all.
Molly Pitcher said
Maybe I am thinking that the human who has the ‘rights’ in this issue happens to be the potential baby. A child has a right to be born reasonably healthy, to have at least one loving parent, to have decent care for its lifetime. And maybe even the right to go snorkeling off Maui or kayaking up a river or rafting down a river or riding thru the Alps looking at cows or traipsing thru a cathedral in England or watching an eclipse in Finland–and finally a right to a place to go for work and play each day and a home to come to each night that is HER home, not mama’s home.
garychapelhill said
Speaking of Palin….John Kerry is an ass:
link here
chatblu said
I also remember many rallies for the ERA that had little to do with choice. They were for fair wages and fair entry into the marketplace. I had a sorority sister graduate 4th in her law school class and was unable to find employment. Our issues were mainly economic at that time.
indigogrrl said
NOW and NARAL are groups that I don’t want to join or associate with since their endorsment of Ofraudma…. so why is it bad that sarah palin doesn’t want to join them?? I don’t get this point? These organizations failed women in 2008.
DYB said
They don’t have to agree. And the fact that they let her get thrown under the bus has nothing to do with what I’m saying. But you seem to be saying that them not wanting to have anything to do with her – and they don’t – is her fault. You’re saying that Palin is welcome to join them – as long as she becomes pro-choice. This precondition is a non-starter. What I’m saying is they are both refusing to work with each other. And so here we are: they go into their separate corner, she goes into hers. You were asking what can be done about this? I guess the answer is nothing.
chatblu said
Caroline, I am not suggesting that we give up our position on choice in order to work with those who are not. I work with many prolifers on other issues and they have given up on changing my mind.
indigogrrl said
“Our issues were mainly economic at that time.”
I believe they still are.
helenk said
I would not like to see the past repeated where abortions are illegal. Too many women died due to lack of proper care.
The only way I can explain my feelings on working together for a common goal is this, in my working life I have worked with some of the most sexist pigs ever created. But our job was to get a train over the road. I do not have to like them or agree with them on everything but I damn well better work with them to get that train over the road that is why I get paid.
If we want ERA – equal pay – child care – health care – action on violence against women – respect we have to work together and there will never be a better time.
In the past the sexism was more overt and not as open as it was this year. Both liberal and conservative women were targeted. Many women were shocked into understanding that it could happen to them. They will be more open to working together for common goals.
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
taggles said
I am playing devils advocate here..
I guess it would be ok if LGBT just settled for civil unions because after all they would recieve many of the benefits a heterosexual couples do. All for the sake of having some equality.
And I guess us pro choicers should just settle for all the other stuff we can gain by forgoing choice. All for the sake of having some equality.
indigogrrl said
very well put, helen!
Cinie said
indigogrrl, the problem is, as I see it, if you take your eye off the ball for the sake of “sisterhood,” what do you do when the “sisters” start incrementally trying to erode your gains? Can you really trust that they won’t? Especially when their moral concerns are so viscerally held? Whether a woman would ever have an abortion herself, her feelings about women’s right to do so is either yes or no. There really is no wiggle room or common ground on this.
chatblu said
Helen: Hear, hear!
indigogrrl said
taggles ~ if I had all the rights and benefits of marriage I wouldn’t give a shit if it was called a civil union. Thats comparing apples to oranges….
DYB said
taggles, once again: NOBODY HERE IS SAYING THAT YOU MUST FOREGO CHOICE. I don’t know where you are getting that.
taggles said
If I could have all the rights over my own body with out being pro choice, I wouldn’t care about any of it either. but that’s not the reality.
indigogrrl said
cinie ~ and what does that have to do with pay equity? and what does that have to do with equal rights? and ERA – equal pay – child care – health care – action on violence against women (what helen said)
Can I not gain these working side by side with another women who just happens to disagree with me on one issue? If I work side by side with that same woman, will I automatically lose the right to choose? No. I won’t.
lililam said
Taggles, this is your wrong assumption:”And I guess us pro choicers should just settle for all the other stuff we can gain by forgoing choice.” I know you are trying for an analogy here, but i feel it is unnecessary and inappropriate, particularly since Roe is law and we can work to maintain it as law. It doesn’t have to be an either/or. Some of us are saying yes to choice, now yes to more stuff. We can all multi-task.
taggles said
When have pro choice women been against equal pay, domestic violence, day care, healthcare?
We have always been about all of those things, lililam.
It is not us who will not work with other groups on these issues. It is they who hold a moral compass on us.
I just can’t get my head around being soft on choice when the other side we are doing it for will never compromise.
taggles said
DYB, the word is that abortion is divisive and we can work on other things.
Who is going to work on for abortion if not pro choicers. Are you suggesting we put that off to the side?
lililam said
Taggles- those things you mention have not been solved. We have Roe and need to defend it- we don’t need to be soft on it, but we need more- don’t limit yourself. I am not your enemy. I don’t really understand your point. I have already said that pro-life fundie groups will probably not be good advocates in such a fight, as their agenda is also self-limiting- why do we need to be self-limiting as well? We are more than that, aren’t you?
taggles said
And actually it’s the anti choicers who insist we we have no CHOICE.
Why be soft on it, just for the sake of some other issues?
Cinie said
Indigo, it seems this is a rather distorted issue. The right to choose is and has been a basic tenet of feminism, as I understand it. Now, for reasons hard to understand, some seem to want to redefine the movement. What is the benefit to accommodating people who hold counter beliefs to those you hold most dear? It’s kinda like recruiting bigots into the Civil Rights movement because they’re all Americans against the war.
taggles said
I do not want to be self limiting lililam. I want as many women as possible to join us on these issues. But to get them to join us, I don’t want to hear that I am being divisive over choice.
The struggle still continues and why should we have to stop fighting the good fight in order to get them to work with us? Just the fact that a pro choice woman is being called divisive and unwilling to work with other women is shocking to me.
And this is about much more than Roe. States are making it very difficult open abortion clinics via legislation. Doctors are being shot, etc etc. we have a long way to go.
taggles said
I am not saying that anyone here has called me divisive and unwilling to work with others. But it is implied when I hear all the time how abortion is so divisive, we have so many other things to work on.
indigogrrl said
cinie ~ is a feminist someone who believes women are entitled to equality?
or is a feminist someone who believes in a woman’s right to choose?
a permanent solution to the choice issue would be the a result of the achievement of equality.
lililam said
With power and equality comes choice.
indigogrrl said
lililam , agreed ~ and options!
Cinie said
Same thing. Right to choose=equality. Not=not.
indigogrrl said
so with my right to choose, I now make $1 for every $1 a man makes???
sweet ~ I got a raise
DYB said
“I want as many women as possible to join us on these issues.”
But taggles, you are setting up a precondition you KNOW they can’t and won’t accept. So you’re not really all that serious about bringing them in to fight alongside you on issues other than abortion. You accuse them of refusing to work with you, but you make a mirror argument to them. You won’t work with them unless they’re pro-choice, and they won’t work with you unless you’re pro-life. Seems like you’ll all be working by yourselves! As Cinie said, there’s no wiggle room. This thread demonstrates that there is no bridge long enough to bring the two sides together. You both have pre-conditions neither side will accept. And that’s fine. NOBODY IS SAYING YOU NEED TO BE SOFT ON CHOICE OR COMPROMISE. But just understand that you’re both slamming the doors in each other’s faces.
Cinie said
False argument, Indigo and you know it. If you don’t have the right to make decisions about your own body without interference, you are inherently inferior to anybody who does, no matter how much money you make.
taggles said
DYB, all i know is that it is abortion, not anti abortion that is being called divisive. I understand in those terms where the compromise is expected.
And pro choice women are using that language every single day.
indigogrrl said
bullshit cinie ~ a rich woman can get an abortion whenever she wants one.
Cinie said
What does that have to do with anything Indigo? Does a man need his wife’s permission to get Viagra? A vasectomy? Anything else? That’s the inequality issue I was talking about. And, the ability to afford a back alley abortion shouldn’t even be part of the discussion, imo.
indigogrrl said
Cinie ~ I was responding to this…
“If you don’t have the right to make decisions about your own body without interference, you are inherently inferior to anybody who does, no matter how much money you make” not saying we should go backwards to back alley abortions.
my point being the the right to choose (which we currently still have) is not the be all and end all of our rights…. there is ALOT to do…. if a conservative woman helps me gain a right, is that right somehow tainted or lesser?
Again ~ I’m with some of the others here …
we need all the help we can get!
DYB said
taggles, as I said, this thread demonstrates that the two sides can’t work together. But the point I’m making is that it’s not all “their” fault. You think they should be soft on anti-choice. Which I understand, I don’t support them either. I’m just not going to pretend that the argument with them is one-sided. That’s all.
afrocity said
I believe that there can be pro-life feminists.
While I am pro-choice and conservative, I think that the left as hijacked feminism in order to push a liberal agenda. If a woman cannot be a feminist because she is pro-life then the person who said this:
and this:
Should NOT be considered a feminist as she is by many. Margaret Sanger was a bigot which is definitely not liberal.
Pat Johnson said
If a woman is unable to say what she can or cannot do with her own body, she remains a second class citizen. She does not have the benefit of equality. She is denied her rights as a human being. She is not autonomous.
Pro choice, or reproductive rights if you will, is a major issue within the feminist community and those who hold opposite views are not true feminists. They are women who have allowed and accept religious views in place of human rights and frankly I see no positive attached to their inclusion. They are setting the rules for all women and their commitment to the ERA is diluted through that view. They may demand the right to equal pay but would deny others the right to choose for themselves. How can that be true feminism? I really don’t understand.
taggles said
Who is shutting the door on these women indigo?? I am not suggesting that.
What I am suggesting is anti abortion groups will not work with pro choice groups because of their religious beliefs.
There are many women who do not beleive in abortion for themselves but do believe in that choice for others. For them abortion is not divisive.
The only people or groups who we are giving into the divisive meme for is anti abortion groups. Who will not budge or compromise. So why even discuss how divisive abortion is. What is the reason to be doing that?
taggles said
The discussion here afrocity is not about conservative women vs. liberal women.
It’s about people and groups who are anti choice.
DYB said
“What I am suggesting is anti abortion groups will not work with pro choice groups because of their religious beliefs.”
True. But pro choice groups won’t work them either!!!! That’s the point I’m making. It works both ways.
Anyhow, I’m off to bed. Good night everyone!
Pat Johnson said
And just for the record: John Kerry is an asshole and an embarrassment for the state of Massachusetts.
indigogrrl said
taggles ~ I’m not discussing how divisive abortion is…
I’m discussing the need for more solutions for our inequality than choice.
As lililam said ~ we protect our right to choice but we need to move toward more progress on other issues as well. And if I agree with another woman on 5 out of 6 issues than we have achieved common ground.
taggles said
DYB, I will work with them on other issues. I hold no religious beliefs that would infringe upon human rights.
indigogrrl said
I’m with ya Pat! when will you all get rid of that jackass!
if angie were here she would make sure he knows he can kiss her ass.
taggles said
How are we protecting choice by agreeing how divisive it is and trying to find common ground with people that wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire.
These people will not work with you unless you are pro life.
afrocity said
Taggles I thought someone said that a pro-life woman could not be a feminist which is saying that basically all feminists must be pro-choice, which comparatively is saying that a feminist cannot be a racist or anything else that is considered anti-liberal. Isn’t being pro-choice inherently liberal?
Isn’t this why Sarah Palin is not considered a feminist and never defended by NOW whenever she is attacked?
indigogrrl said
and then self employed person also needs to get to bed so that she may rise and shine and give excellent customer service and make purty signs. nite y’all ~ stimulating and entertaining and thought provoking as usual!
taggles said
I have no idea what you are saying in the first paragraph, it might be because I’m getting tired. try again, really! LOL
NOW should have defended palin against sexist attacks. They were not, however, required to give her a pass on her anti choice views.
taggles said
night indigo!
helenk said
If the person standing in a protest march for ERA was going on and on against Roe v Wade I do not have to listen or agree. But I will walk with them for a common goal ERA.
I will also protest against them any time they try to have that law changed.
We are not weak in our beliefs and can stand up for them.
We do not have to agree on everything just some things as long as they are for the betterment of women.
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALIST AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
DYB said
Okay, I’m still up. Taggles, I believe that you will work with them. And someone like Palin – who did appoint a pro-choice judge to the state Supreme Court – might work with you. But major women’s rights groups like NOW and Naral will not work with her. She is not welcome. That’s the point I’m making. Both sides have etched the line in stone and won’t budge. I’m not saying that’s bad or good. I’m just saying!
Now I’m going. Good night!
Pat Johnson said
I consider myself a feminist because I firmly believe that a woman has the right to choose. Would I still be a feminist if I thought otherwise? The answer to that, IMHO, would be no since I am saying that I believe that a woman should not have control over her own body.
This is how I sum it up for myself. Have an abortion or don’t have an abortion, it is all the same to me. I would not judge a person facing either situation since I could just as easily faced it myself. But at least leave me the option to decide for myself the best course of action for my circumstances.
taggles said
That’s right helen, we don’t have to agree. so why am I hearing all the time how abortion is so divisive?
afrocity said
NOW did not defend Palin because she is pro-life and a conservative. If you are pro-life woman then you do not deserve to be treated as an equal in their eyes. Why defend someone whose views you despise? How dare she have an opinion that differs from most women?
This is also the reason why NAACP will not defend Michael Steele.
taggles said
DYB, I don’t believe that women’s groups have etched a line in the sand. If pro lifers want to work on DV, or equal pay with NOW, they wouldn’t be stopped.
taggles said
Right Afrocity. totally agree with you. They were WRONG. But they don’t have give up being pro choice for sarah palin. They are allowed to have a difference of opinion on that without being called divisive.
Pat Johnson said
NOW and Naral did not exactly voice any strong opinion against the onslaught of misogyny directed at Hillary Clinton either. And she is pro choice. It sees to me that they were equally silent regarding both candidates.
afrocity said
I don’t believe that abortion or gay marriage should be political issues. Palin cliams that her pro-life, anti gay stance has to do with her religious values- which she is entitled to. I really don’t like that someone would say that she has to be pro-choice in order to be “for women’s rights” , anymore than I was told just this weekend that I could not be a black Republican and for minority rights.
helenk said
Taggles
I do not think I have said that abortion is divisive. If I did I my words did not come out right. To me Choice is exactly what the word means If for some reason you feel you need an abortion you have the right to one that is safe. If you believe that it is wrong to have an abortion you have the right not to have one.
Maybe with the new election of NOW officers some common sense will prevail on major issues. I hope so. For years I got the impression that abortion was their only issue. There are so many issues that need to be address and they have the organization to address them if they will.
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
Pat Johnson said
Those of us who were part of the First Wave of feminism saw the reality of backstreet abortions. The younger feminists of today have not had to live with the results of botched “surgeries” and homegrown attempts to end an unwanted pregnancy.
Many in the younger crowd were born after the Pill went into production. They were not part of the earlier battles to assist women to achieve some form of neutrality when it came to making life altering decision that were deemed safe. Pro lifers base their reasoning on religious beliefs which does not translate into a feminist agenda. But that is just how I see it.
lililam said
Afrocity, those two groups lost a wonderful opportunity by not supporting the individuals you named (not to mention Hillary). Even though I am not a white supremicist (not even close!), I believe the ACLU won some respect by defending their right to assemble in Skokie, even though those who assembled were perceived as diametrically opposed to much of what the ACLU held dear.
afrocity said
This a a quote from an email that was sent to me about 3 months ago.
Please lets be open to having a dialogue as women that includes opposing views.
Pat Johnson said
I probably should not be part of this conversation since any idea of my becoming pregnant at this stage would be somewhere near the Virgin Birth and a miracle of the ages.
taggles said
I wasn’t accusing you helen of saying abortion is divisive. but that is the new kumbaya for feminists who think if we just ignore it and don’t talk about it we can do everything else.
Problem with that is we might lose choice and/or we may be agreeing to that premise for nothing because the pro lifers will not work with women groups that are pro choice, for any cause.
Who are we agreeing to not talk about choice because it’s divisive for? It’s not anyone who doesn’t have qualms in working with us.
lililam said
Although the whole thing made me want to vomit and hug those fellow Jews (not at the same time, mind you).
Pat Johnson said
afrocity: That is horrible! Sickening.
afrocity said
Pat you were born in the 19th century? Then you would know that there were many conservative women who were first wave feminists.
afrocity said
ROTFL Pat. That is actually light compared to some of the stuff I get.
taggles said
Afrocity, who is stopping you from speaking your mind here. But as you know we are a left leaning blog. You might not find a lot of agreement on some thing and I think you understand that.
lahana said
I think we need to acknowledge that when a woman has an abortion that there has been a failure. A failure of birth control (or a teenager coming up with the message that a good girl doesn’t PLAN to have sex –and therefore doesn’t use birth control). A failure of economics that makes having a baby an untenable decision. A failure of safety that led to being raped. A failure of nature that gave the woman a child that is severely deformed or will die in the womb. But the decision to have an abortion is never a good decision — it is just often the least worst decision. And looked at it this way, there are large areas where we can work with anti-abortion advocates to changes as many of the conditions as can be changed so that these failures don’t happen. There are some things we cannot change, but if we all worked together, we might be able to change a lot of them.
taggles said
lahana, i am almost tempted to agree with you regarding being able to work towards reducing abortions, contraception, economics.
but the very people who are trying to take away the right to have an abortion are the same people who don’t want women to have access to contraception, or sex education.
The only reason this argument exists is because there are people and groups who fight against these issues.
afrocity said
Taggles, actually I was directing that towards so called women’s groups like NOW. I know you guys are moonbats (lol) but I come here because I am still a PUMA and I like to be a snot.
afrocity said
Taggles, like many Democrats who are Catholic?
SHV said
I am sure that the correlation isn’t 100% but women who are in favor of forced child birth are also unlikely to be supportive of same sex marriage, ERA, and other “feminist” issues. I wonder if the three female Republican Senators who voted for Ledbetter would have voted for the legislation that would have made a difference for “equal pay” if Obama hadn’t had it removed from consideration.
Pat Johnson said
afrocity has always and intelligently added much to any discussion by dint of her brain, her articulation, her reasoning. She may see things a little differently than some of us, hell, I even disagree here at times, but her voice has always been one of respect and consideration.
And I forgive her for the 19th century reference.
helenk said
For any woman who is not old enough to remember the good old days before birth control pills I can tell what is life to ask a doctor and get told you have to have five living children before you can get them. I can tell war stories of young girls dying due to back alley abortions with dirty instruments and unqualified people performing them. Ask young women do you really want to go back to that. Unless they plan to be nuns they better hope that birth control laws and abortion laws are not repealed and safe effective methods are available.
You know we old women who do not know what we are talking about and never lived through anything or fought for anything might just make some young women wake up and pay attention.
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE, AND MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
Pat Johnson said
helen, for us bitter knitters who know nothing, well said.
Cinie said
Lahana, we most certainly do not have to agree that abortion equates with failure. At least, I don’t. There’s no reason to characterize or qualify it at all.
taggles said
Afrocity, like anyone who for religious reasons thinks abortion is baby killing and contraception is against gods will. Democrat or Republican.
afrocity said
SHV you just excluded the many conservative lesbians that I know who are pro-life but for gay marriage and other “feminist” issues.
SHV said
Taggles, like many Democrats who are Catholic?
*****************
“Only 21% of Catholics are either strongly or weakly affiliated as a
Republican. This is the lowest number of Catholic Republicans in a long
time, even going back before 2000 when Al Gore won the Catholic vote.
(23% R in ‘06) and (31% R in ‘04).
60% Catholics are D’s to 36% Catholics are R’s when leaners are
included.”
http://www.catholicdemocrats.org/news/2008/06/more_data_cara_study_on_cathol.php
taggles said
I don’t agree that abortion relates to failure either. Thanks for making it clear cinie.
Pat Johnson said
lahana: What “failure” are you referring to? And if a failure, should she be the only one to suffer the consequences? In the end it is always the woman who pays the price either to abort or come to term. And bear the “blame”.
afrocity said
Thanks Pat. I only made the 19th century comment because you said:
.
Now either you are Susan B. Anthony and I am Harriet Tubman or ….
SHV said
SHV you just excluded the many conservative lesbians that I know who are pro-life but for gay marriage and other “feminist” issues.
**********
Could be…but I live in the Bible belt so I would never know. Also I think you and your friends are atypical of conservatives and Republicans in the 21st century. You are born out of your time. Your political positions are more like the diversity that used to exist in the Republican party prior to the purges by the religious right wing.
Pat Johnson said
afrocity: I got you humor. As for Susan B., she never shared her crayons during art class.
afrocity said
SHV, I went to Catholic school. Many of them were Democrats and they were against contraception, even speaking against the rhythm method.
afrocity said
SHV, please visit Smart Girl Politics.
http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/
There are many conservative women like me who are pro-choice, black and golly gee some are even lesbians (gasp) and miss Sunday school once and a while.
Pat Johnson said
I am a 12 year product of Catholic schools. Very active in church activities when my kids were younger. But I saw the divisiveness up close and personal which gave me pause. I broke away and never looked back. Women are not part of the decision making in most churches, regardless of affiliation and women’s rights are delegated by the hierarchy which is predominately male. They will never understand women nor do they desire to. Dominance is the key factor.
helenk said
afrocity
I went to both public and catholic schools back in the dark ages.
You want to make a nun crazy tell her ” if you had your choice on marrying a Protestant who would be good to you or a Catholic who would beat you everyday of the week and twice on Sunday you would take the Protestant”.
The spent the rest of the class explaining why you should marry within the faith.
I got the highest mark in religion class that year.
Ask a priest if Life begins at conception why can you not baptize a miscarriage.
As you can see I started trouble making at a young age.
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
afrocity said
Helen I do not like their stance on suicide. I do believe that God forgives.
SHV said
SHV, I went to Catholic school. Many of them were Democrats and they were against contraception, even speaking against the rhythm method.
*********
I respect the RCs for their position, it has always been consistent. The fundamentalist Protestants, however, are late comers to the abortion issue. In the ’60s and early 70’s, they were nowhere to be seen and the impression that I got in those years, from that group, was abortion = fewer people on welfare. I don’t think that there are many, if any, RCs killing people or blowing up clinics.
lahana said
I never said that a woman (or girl) who has an abortion is a failure. I said that the NEED for an abortion points to a failure. Some of these failures no one can do anything about — the heart-breaking failures in child development that are responsible for almost all 3rd trimester abortions. But there are things that we can do about some of the other causes. Clear teaching about sexuality and birth control — as I aluded to earlier, the combination of abstinence only sex education and our sexually charged society has led to a lot of young women who believe that good girls don’t PLAN to have sex — but if you are carried away by the moment…. And we have to do something about the attitudes in our communities that look the other way and come up with excuses for acquaintence rape. If we all worked together for this, maybe we really could make abortions safe, legal and rare. And, while I know that there are many prolife women who are against birth control, not all of them are — and that includes Sarah Palin.
afrocity said
Lahana,
I see your point. It depends on the circumstances. I am a pro-choice person who happens to believe that life begins at conception. I never believed the life begins at birth argument even when I was young. I also believe in abstinence. I watched every woman in my family have babies out of wedlock. Pregnancy scared me to death so I kept the legs closed. No sex, no baby problem solved. When I was old enough to care for a child, I had sex. I was 27. That is extreme I know but I did not want to deal with the possibility of ending a life just because I got pregnant.
Cinie said
“Safe, legal and rare.” Are abortions not all those things now?
helenk said
lahana
I do understand what you mean by failure. It is not only the failure of birth control and sex education that hurts young women and young men.
The failure to prevent std by teaching safe sex can ruin many lives.
Sex is here and is never going away and should be dealt with . Common sense, education, and open discussion, and birth control methods are needed for people of all ages.
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
lahana said
I realize from my comments that I may have come across as pro-life. I am not — I am firmly pro-choice. But I have come to realize that my feelings vary depending on the age of the person. The thing that has always gotten my goat is the argument that somewhere there may be an 11 or 12 year old who is having an abortion without getting permission. 11 and 12 year olds are 6th grade children. They should not be having babies. And any sex they had is most clearly rape. I would go as far as agreeing to a law that required an abortion for girls under 13 years of age. One of my daughters got pregnant and had a child when she was a little under 17 years old. Pregnancy stresses a woman’s (and especially girl’s) systems to the limit. Since having her child, her immune system has never been the same. So I don’t have a problem with minors having abortions, but I do find that I feel that as a woman gets older, at some point you have to take responsibility for your actions — and I would just like to know that there is a real necessity for the abortion. That being said, I know that no one can know what is happening in a situation from the outside, and that no one makes the decision to have an abortion lightly. Sorry if this isn’t a completely logical view — but that is where I have come to.
taggles said
lahana, people who are pro choice allow themselves to have these thoughts and try to reach for compromise. the problem is the other side will not compromise.
It’s all or nothing for them.
So, when I start hearing feminists talk about how divisive abortion is and even speaking about it is preventing us from doing other things, i start to get nervous.
helenk said
Lahana
I did not think you were against abortion. What I understood you to say was that if everything had worked right there would be no need for an abortion.
If sex education and birth control methods were in place and tv and movies and music and peer pressure did not make young women feel that they must have sex before they are ready, abortion would not be needed.
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
Three Wickets said
Tunisia is an interesting example. A 99% Sunni Muslim nation where first trimester abortions are safe and legal, very rare in the Muslim world. Just as rare in that world, Tunisia is economically quite self-sufficient without the benefit of oil, and they are relatively developed and vigilant in the fields of women’s rights and human rights.
On the other hand, there’s no shortage of countries around the world where abortion is as legal as the US but women’s status and rights are still far behind that of men – most of Asia including Japan (exclude China where abortions are mandated), and Eastern Europe come to mind. Fairly secular nations for the most part. In those places at least, the right to an abortion does little to advance the fight for women’s rights against embedded patriarchies in government, workplace, and society.
And yes, Sarah Palin for me is a feminist (if that generally means advancing the cause and status of women), though I will not be voting for her again.
helenk said
3W
Your point is well made. Abortion is not the only issue. Women must work together to improve many things. And intelligent men must work with them.
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
Fredster said
Okay, somebody going to have to do some ’splaining to me. Can you-anyone give me examples of the first wave of feminism, then the second, the third etc.?
Which wave are we in now? And no, I’ve never taken a course in feminism or feminist history.
Thanks!
Cinie said
Here’s the Wiki entry, Fredster:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism
And, psssssst! I never took a course, either. Didn’t study being black, for that matter. Somehow, the moves just came naturally.
Fredster said
LOL!! Thanks Cinie.
Fredster said
And, psssssst! I never took a course, either. Didn’t study being black, for that matter. Somehow, the moves just came naturally
Ah…you have the advantage in both of these instances.
I could see from a quick look at the wiki entry I have some reading to do there.
samanthasmom said
If safe, effective, easily affordable and widely available birth control coupled with the availability of an emergency contraceptive had been around earlier, I doubt that there would have been the huge push to make abortion legal except in very narrow circumstances. The first round of feminism in the US was about the right to vote. The second wave of feminism was more about economic issues and access to the workplace. If women are to succeed, they need to have control over their reproductive functions so access to abortion became a big issue. The pill was fairly new, had many more side effects, was hard to get if you were unmarried, and was expensive. I know that many anti-abortion rights groups also feel strongly about birth control, but if birth control is practiced privately, take your pill every night and go to bed, it’s hard to rally the troops against it. Without abortion clinics to stage protests at and pictures of aborted fetuses and recordings of baby heartbeats to stick in people’s faces, groups like Operation Rescue would not have gotten off the ground. They might still be going on and on about whether birth control methods prevent conception or are aborting fertilized eggs, but I doubt they would have much of an audience. And I think that Sarah Palin would be a celebrity member of NOW. Whether or not to have a child is a personal decision, I agree, but to say that the right to an abortion has always been the cornerstone of feminism is to deny our history.
taggles said
Samanthasmom, I believe that the right of a woman to control her body is a cornerstone for equality. I am not denying any history.
I would like to know if you think Sarah Palin would join NOW?
I don’t think she would. her supporters would go wild, and not in a good way. She is anti abortion.
I welcome Sarah Palin into NOW if she can shut up about and leave abortion at the door, like feminists are being asked to do to reach common ground. But I don’t think that would be the case.
samanthasmom said
taggles,
I agree that Sarah Palin would not join NOW in the current situation. My point was that if abortion had not side-tracked the feminist agenda, there would be no schism, and you and Palin would be on the same side. And we have been side-tracked by abortion rights. If I have easy access to reliable contraception, then access to abortion should not be the be all to end all issue that we have let it become. All of the other feminist issues have taken a back seat. I didn’t take to the streets in the 60’s and 70’s to give women the right to end unwanted pregnancies, but I understood that the ability to control one’s body was a necessary step to the economic and political parity that I was actively, very actively, working for. We’ve let it becomes the ends instead of the means. To a woman who sincerely holds the belief that there are two people involved in an abortion and one is seeking the right to murder the other, it’s no wonder that feminists look like “savages and zombies” (From a comment at Violet’s place.) Yes, women should have the right to control their own bodies, and they do. It’s the law. Let’s keep an eye on the law, but please, let’s move on to the reasons why we fought for that right.
DYB said
taggles, I keep saying this, but here it goes again: YOU might welcome Palin into NOW, but you are not all of NOW. NOW does not welcome Palin!!! She is not wanted among its members because she is anti-choice. I don’t see you acknowledging that the rejection works both ways. You are saying that you will not go soft on being pro-choice. But you expect her to go soft on being anti-choice. As long as you and the other side keep that line etched in stone you will never unite to fight for other issues. For you choice is the be all and end all issue. And that’s fine. But why are you shocked that it’s the be all and end all issue for the other side as well? You keep pointing to the other side for not working with NOW. But you are also saying that unless anti-choicers start respecting your right to choose (which would make them pro-choice!) there’s nothing for you to talk about. You are angry that they’re not compromising, but I don’t see you compromising either. And why should you? But why should they?
taggles said
DYB, I am not shocked about it at all. Abortion is divisive. The point you are missing is that it is not the anti choicers that are being asked to leave their issue at the door.
I hear feminists all the time saying abortion isn’t important any more after last years election. Abortion is dividing us. Let’s not talk about, just shut up about it. Don’t make it the end all be all. As a matter of fact, my bringing it up here makes me divisive and I am categorized as a one issue feminist.
Who are we willing to do this for. I assume the people we are willing to do this for are anti choicers, so we can work with them on issues of equal pay, era, etc.
And the anti choicers would never do it. Pro choice women believe in choice for everyone. That is why we are willing to work with them on other issues. The same cannot be said for anti choicers.
taggles said
And you are confusing something here DYB. The women’s groups were very very wrong to not defend Hillary of Sarah against sexism. But that doesn’t mean they have to accept her anti choice position.
NOW might let her join if she could just leave her anti choice baggage at the door.
Which is what is being asked of pro choice feminists.
DYB said
I’m not talking about women’s groups not defending Clinton and Palin. That’s got nothing to do with it. But I don’t see how a women’s group that tells an anti-choicer that in order to join them she has to accept a woman’s right to choose is doing anything other than slamming the door in her face. You’re saying NOW would let Palin join if she…what? What does “leave her anti choice baggage at the door” mean? Perhaps I’m misreading that statement. To me is says that Palin must become pro-choice to join NOW. That sounds like NOW telling Palin to get lost. How can you say that “we are willing to work with them on other issues” when your precondition is that they stop opposing choice. This logic makes no sense to me! Can you explain the phrase “leave her anti choice baggage at the door.” What exactly does that entail?
taggles said
DYB, the point I am making is that pro choice women ARE being asked to leave their pro choice baggage at the door to work on other issues with anti choicers, by pro choice women.
It is not being asked the other way around. And if it is they will tell ya to go screw. But Pro choice women are willing to do this, that is obvious. The compromise will come from pro choice, because we agree that women can either choose to have an abortion or not have one.
DYB said
I still don’t understand what “leave anti-choice baggage at the door” means. Or for that matter “leave choice baggage at the door.”
And again, NOW is not willing to do anything. The one and only reason they behaved like they did during the election is because Palin is anti-choice. Obviously they’re not in a very inclusive mood. NOW defined Palin as anti-choice, period. Nothing else in her life mattered to them. I’m not sure that NOW and Naral are good examples of pro-choice women willing to work with the other side.
taggles said
DYB, they did not defend her against sexism because she is anti choice, and that was wrong. That doesn’t negate the fact that they can disagree with her on choice.
Palin is anti choice.
I would like to know if you think pro choice women should compromise on choice to get along with anti choicers. That IS what is being asked of pro choicers. Do you think pro choicers should do that?
We are being asked to do that, you can see that through out this thread and some agree we should. Is it something that should be done? I don’t think so.
And they didn’t stick up for Hillary either, which was also wrong. And she was pro choice. They were a very sick organization.
taggles said
Women’s groups are not wrong in the choice position. They were wrong in not defending women from sexism. These are two different birds. NOW and any other pro choice organization can hold a pro choice position, just as you say anti choice organizations can.
But what I hear and see on blogs from pro choice feminists is that abortion is divisive and can’t we just leave it at the door.
It’s impossiible. And for what to reach out and work for other women’s groups on other issues, when they would never do the same for us?
That is the point, I do not know how to make it any clearer.
you seem to missing the point that pro choice women are being asked to leave abortion at the door because it is to divisive.
DYB said
I’ll ask again and then stop: what does “leave anti-choice baggage at the door” mean to you? What do you mean by “compromise on choice.” I think your idea of “compromise” is different from mine. I’m saying sit down and talk to someone like Palin about equal pay and domestic violence. But you keep coming back to “But she’s anti-choice and she needs to leave it at the door.” You are proving my point that they’re not the only ones who refuse to work this out. And please don’t interpret “work this out” as “you abandoning choice.” If you can’t sit down at a table with Palin to discuss equal pay and domestic violence because she’s anti-choice…how is that her fault?
DYB said
taggles, I think you were the only person in this thread who called abortion “divisive.”
taggles said
DYB, have you read the original post. And are you saying abortion isn’t divisive? It certainly is?
I’ll ask again, because it is divisive, should pro choice women be asked to leave abortion at the door and work with women who would never leave abortion at the door? That is what is being asked, you can deny that fact if you want. And maybe that is where this disconnect is.
DYB said
It sounds like me like you’re saying that before you talk to Palin about equal pay and domestic violence she must become pro-choice. She must give up her position completely even as you refuse to give up yours. And she’s probably thinking the same thing you are. Which is why the two sides will never work together.
taggles said
please re read this:
Feminists can’t win without the help of anti choicers, therefore we must accept anti choicers as feminists and view abortion primarily as a ‘tactic’ that keeps women ‘divided’ and ’subjugated’. If that’s how you view abortion rights, then you’ve pretty much dropped the issue. This is a defeat for feminism, even if it is tactically necessary to make progress in other areas (which it may be).
taggles said
No I am not saying that Sarah Palin has to be anything. She wouldn’t change if her life depended on it.
The question is should pro choice women change?
DYB said
taggles, did you see me asking you three previous times how you define “leaving choice/abortion at the door?”
The issue of abortion is divisive. But you rail against the idea that it’s divisive even as you yourself call it divisive. I don’t get it.
taggles said
You are missing the basic premise of this posty DYB. Pro choice women are being asked to leave abortion at the door and work with groups that they are at complete odds with over abortion. While these anti choice groups would never do the same.
so that is the compromise.
It is a one sided compromise and for what.
taggles said
Leaving abortion at the door – abortion is not that important, we have other things to work on and we are willing to not talk about it and leave our principles behind even though they would never do the same.
Accepting the premise that it is divisive and to put that division aside to work with a group that would never ever dream of doing the same for you. For what??? That is the question.
And you have not answered my question that I have asked twice. Do you think women should put abortion on the back burner, leave it at the door, don’t discuss, make it seem less important, because it is divisive, to achieve other goals with a group that would never compromise their principles?
They will not join pro choice groups for any reason because of their religiosity. I don’t care if it was the best solution to pay equality. They would not join a group that has choice in it’s platform. Where pro choice women it seems are willing to make that compromise.
So we can all work to make their groups stronger while while choice gets left behind.
Three Wickets said
Why affirm the notion that the world can only be made up of pro-choicers and anti-choicers, and therefore that’s where the battle line must be drawn for women’s rights. My perception, naive perhaps, is that the majority of feminists are not single-issue pro-choice activists or single-issue pro-life activists, (all present company aside). The fight to defend abortion rights is necessary, but it does not define nor should it preempt the much broader fight for women’s rights, status, and well being. Imhmo.
taggles said
TW, because pro choice women are being asked to just let choice be to go a long to get a long. I do not think that is a very good strategy.
Unless we are just willing to give up the fight on that. Maybe we are ready to do that to get other things accomplished.
Why should someone’s pro choice stance define them as single issue feminists? That is a fallacy. It’s like telling people to shut up about it. Sorry, if people just shut up about it, it will disappear.
DYB said
taggles, you are equating “not discussing abortion while working on equal pay” with “abandoning choice altogether.” I’m not buying that comparison. To me “not discussing it” with those you know don’t agree with you is not the same as “abandoning the issue.” Obviously since you refuse to “not discuss it” you are refusing to leave it at the door. But then why do you expect them to leave anything at the door? The moment they walk in to discuss equal pay you’ll start talking about abortion. Why shouldn’t they do the same? You are accusing them of the exact same thing of which I think you are guilty. It’s all or nothing for everyone. Hence, the lines are etched in stone and no, you’ll never work with them.
carolinenotakennedy said
Three Wickets,
If I do not have control over my own body, if I can not make my own choices regarding my productive rights, why would I think that I have equality?
To me, control of my physical body is the foundation of my equality. All other equality issues follow that. If I have no choice regarding my body than I am certainly not equal.
I feel that we must safe guard the progress that has been made and putting that progress on the back burner is a slippery slope that should not be taken, imho. We are far from secure just because we have Roe.
taggles said
DYB, I have never expected them to leave their issue at the door what I resent is them expecting me to leave mine at the door.
So who’s gonna give up their cause, them or me. And if you think it’s me why do you think it should be me and not them.
Three Wickets said
Guess the debate stalls when we say without abortion rights, nothing else can move forward. (Not sure I entirely agree.) But we have abortion rights, Roe is not going anywhere anytime soon. Yes, there are people who try and chip away at it. But in the context of the whole women’s movement, primarily playing defense on abortion rights will preclude it from playing offense in other areas. And as we no doubt hear too often, that situation sounds just dandy to the entrenched patriarchy. The fear mongering on the threat to abortion rights is part of *their* implicit strategy. Well, anyway, the biggest thing that will likely shape the women’s movement in the coming years will be the economy. That is where the game will be imo, whether it’s called feminism or something else.
Three Wickets said
Caroline, guess I would say abortion rights may not be the only rights that gives you control over your body, your health, your well being, your life, with respect to a male partner or in comparison to men in general.
DYB said
taggles, at no point did I say that you must leave your argument at the door. I’m merely pointing out that you can hardly be angry at them for refusing to keep their arguments to themselves.
Cinie said
Isn’t “pro-life” a “choice?” What further concessions need be made?
BillieJo said
If abortion were taken out of the equation, women would be in agreement, we could pass the ERA and actually have some respect and power in the future.
Debating if pro-life women are feminists or not – gets us nowhere for another generation.
We are all women that are treated unfairly, that should be enough.
Women in NOW that demand a pro-choice pledge are shooting them in the foot…again.
I am pro-choice, a Hillary supporter and I am tired of the abortion battle among women.
taggles said
BillieJoe,
The problem with thinking that just taking abortion out of the equation will help is this:
These same anti choicers believe that the ERA will put abortion and gay marriage into the constitution.
Again, I have to ask who is it we are trying to attract or work with on these causes by taking abortion out of the equation and what good will it do? People who have no problem with choice and gay marriage will have no problem with the ERA. It’s the very people we are trying to appease who will fight us tooth and nail on the ERA.
Shannon Drury said
Abortion will remain an issue in the women’s movement as long as only women get pregnant.
I am a third wave feminist, a member of NOW, and a mother of two children. I don’t identify as pro-choice, because I think that limits the debate. I believe in the full spectrum of reproductive RIGHTS. That includes the right to a safe, legal abortion in a clinic that is affordable and accessible. That includes the right to control my fertility as I, not my husband nor my senator, see fit. For when women have control of their bodies, they have control of their destinies. It’s a civil rights issue, not a “choice” or a “life” one.